• 0 Posts
  • 491 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 29th, 2023

help-circle
  • Hitler was actually extremely childish as was his entire regime. The similarities are remarkable.

    Henry VIII of England was basically what would happen if a pro American football player was a powerful king. He’s suspected to have had CTE.

    Versailles was basically a cruel experiment on the mental health of trapped nobility and rulers, that involved basically nothing but petty social games for power and prestige, but no options to use them.

    Rome had plenty of emperors like this including Caligula and Nero. Nero had a neck beard and unhealthy attachment to his mother. Meanwhile if half of what was written about Elagabulus is true then we have proof of how bad of an idea it is to give absolute power to a horny teenager with neither qualifications nor training.

    Speaking of weird mommy issues, Wilhelm I of Prussia/Germany was a weird childish man whose family spat was the first world war. On the other side was Nicolas of Russia who wasn’t much better.

    Also Ghaddafi was nuts, like in funny and horrifying ways, but definitely never matured after taking power young.

    So yeah, I’m conflating kings, emperors, and dictators as all more or less the same, because they kinda are. Julius Caesar took the title of dictator, was assassinated to prevent him from being a king, and was invoked by the emperors. We have a modern tendency to think of dictators as people who came to power through coups or the military, which can lead towards more mature and sane figures, but we still use the term for the hereditary absolute ruler of North Korea (it’s a socialism themed monarchy) and we don’t use it to describe the huge portion of roman emperors who were generals installed by coup. Additionally, history indicates (to me at least) that you likely have to be a bit nuts and immature to overthrow an established republic, because of the behavior shown by citizens in a destabilizing republic.

    I understand the urge to treat this administration as a freak of history, but they’re just too similar to the third reich to do so responsibly. And yeah those similarities include immaturity. It seems that a destabilizing republic is best hijacked by the narcissistic, and narcissists who are leaning into their disorder tend towards immaturity because growth often requires painful self reflection.


  • It’s also meant to say “look see we can make them regret it” as well as to draw into the paternal metaphor they keep using. Those weird comments they keep making about “daddy” being home to punish dissenters, feels very in line with this. The idea being that they’re trying to depict themselves as tough but necessary, and opposition as the same as a child misbehaving because of unenforced boundaries. In this regard they’re depicting her as crying to treat her like a child who has been spanked, and as such (in their eyes) one who will in the future respect their authority and eventually thank them for it.

    They need to maintain the narrative that the protesters to contain both hardened rebels, and primarily be ordinary people who just don’t understand discipline and the need to enforce the rules.













  • I don’t think it’s dementia that did that, I think it’s a very specific type of psychological abuse that results in thinking that way. I suspect it’s from his father encouraging him to be a bully, placing high expectations, and not caring enough to watch him actually earn awards, just checking that he has them. This is all in line with the childhood his niece described in her book Too Much and Never Enough.

    A childhood like that could easily shape one’s understanding of achievement away from “doing the thing” to “having the rewards/symbol of having done the thing”. And if someone thinks having the trophy is more important than having won the competition I don’t see any reason they would feel the divine would think any differently. And I think even pre dementia he’d slowly drift from “I have the 2025 Nobel peace prize” to “I won the 2025 Nobel peace prize” slowly reshaping his memories until he doesn’t remember how he got it.


  • They’ll gloss over a lot of it just like they do with Hitler. You hear about the big things like the beer hall putsch, maybe the street fighting, the Nuremberg laws, kristalnacht, maybe the nighr of long knives, the concentration and death camps, the blitz, the attacks on western and Eastern Europe, and the seige of stalingrad. That’s a lot, so they often don’t address stuff like the bizarre structure of nazi command (it was far more about who could claim to have the ear of who than a rigid structure), the fact that Goering was an opiate addict from the time he joined the party to the time he was hanged for it, the fact that the party was super anti drug and Hitler and his wehrmacht were on meth, the fact that anti semitism basically gave the united states nukes thanks to brain drain, the insistence on spreading efforts into many super weapons rather than committing to a small number given all the resources they could possibly need, the fact that Himmler was a weird nerdy loser whose power came from being the least obviously threatening option to many party members…

    Or we could go to WWI Germany, because Kaiser Wilhelm was barely discussed in my history classes other than just him being in charge and having been largely led by the actually competent Bismarck, but this guy was a weird crazy little motherfucker. And I mean that in a “this guy was attracted to his mom” way.

    Ooh or you could look at the Roman Empire, the whole empire is largely glossed over with a bit about the Julians then Constantine and Justinian and the fall of the western empire. But like, a decent portion of the roman emperors were some variety of bonkers according to the history (but roman historians are much more like highly partisan propagandists than dutiful recounters of happenings).

    In short, people already forget his scandals from a year ago, much less last term. Many books will be written about him, but ultimately his primary strategy is “flooding the zone” ie keep doing controversial shit that gets your name in the news so nothing is able to stick, and if it does then who cares, that means nobody’s reporting on your current bad thing. The internal crackdowns will be condensed and simplified to major turning points and the external aggression will be condensed and simplified similarly. And in that way the next fascist movement will involve the “you’re exaggerating” for years before it becomes “yeah, so what”.